urban institute justice policy center the ojjdp evaluation of teen courts (etc) project janeen buck...
TRANSCRIPT
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
The OJJDP Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC) Project
Janeen BuckJeffrey Butts
October 23, 2002
National Youth Court CenterEvaluation WorkshopIndianapolis, IN
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC)
Funded by
Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention
U.S. Department of Justice
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Goals of the Evaluation
• Describe teen court operations
• Describe teen court clients
• Track samples of youth going through teen court and compare them with similar youth not referred to teen court
• Assess the impact of the teen court process on youth using a quasi-experimental design
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
New charges sent to intake
New charges sent to juvenile court
New arrest by local police
New charges sent to family court
6%8%9% 9%
Alaska Arizona Maryland Missouri
Combined recidivism in all states
18%
All 4 States
Teen Court Cases
Comparison Cases
Bottom Line?
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
The Big Question
Do Teen Courts Work?
Surprisingly, very few studieshave addressed this question.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Our Review of Existing Studies
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Hissong, 1991
Teen Court Comparison
% Recidivating
24% 36%
Statistically Significant Difference ( p < .01 )
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Hissong, 1991
• Little information about group selection
• No consistent follow-up periods
• Recidivism not clearly defined
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
N.C. AOC, 1995
Teen Court Comparison
% Recidivating in 7 months
20% 9%
Not Statistically Significant
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
N.C. AOC, 1995
• Follow-up periods were inconsistent
• Offenses of comparison group varied from teen court group
• Small samples
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
El Dorado Co. (CA), 1999
Teen Court Comparison
% Recidivating in 1 year
17% 27%
Not Statistically Significant
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
El Dorado Co. (CA), 1999
• Selection bias; comparison cases those rejected for teen court and referred to probation instead
• Possibly varying follow-up periods
• Recidivism not well defined
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
ETC, Urban Institute, 2002
• adequate sample sizes
• sound comparison groups
• standard follow-up exposure
• diversity of measures
• focused on key components
Our goals:
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
What are the Key Components?
The first challenge of the ETC project was deciding what to measure…
“Black Box” problem: If we don’t know the key ingredients of teen court effectiveness, we can’t test the impact of those ingredients
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
• Peer-to-peer influence (quality, quantity)?
• Sanctions (certainty, severity, swiftness)?
• Improving youth perceptions of justice?
• Fairness and consistency of process?
• Professionalism, formality of program?
What Makes Teen Court Work?
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
What Makes Teen Court Work?
Some of these elements may conflict with one another
Until we have more evidence, we won’t know what the key elements are
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Evaluation of Teen Courts (ETC)
The Urban Institute studied teen courts (or youth courts) in four sites from 2000 to 2002
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Four Study Sites
Anchorage
AK
Maricopa County
AZ
Independence
MO
Montgomery County
MD
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Four Study Sites
Alaska --
Arizona --
Maryland --
Missouri --
100% Youth Tribunal
50% Adult Judge / 50% Peer Jury
50% Adult Judge / 50% Peer Jury
100% Youth Judge
Percent of cases handled by court model
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Evaluation Samples
Research Groups AK AZ MD MOTeen Court 120 115 154 142
Comparison 120 115 118 142
Number of Cases
Youth similar to teen court cases, but handled in traditional juvenile justice system, whatever that meant… intervention or not
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Evaluation Samples
Research Groups AK AZ MD MOTeen Court 120 115 154 142
Comparison 120 115 118 142
Number of Cases
Youth similar to teen court cases, but handled in a proactive police diversion program, with sanctions and interventions similar to those provided in teen court
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Diverse Data Sources
• Teen court case records
• Police records
• Dept of Juvenile Justice records
• Face-to-face interviews (1 site only)
• Short, self-administered questionnaires
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Defendant ProfilesAK AZ MD MO
Youth is male 57% 62% 61% 61%
Youth is under age 15 33 48 34 50
Parent is under age 40 35 44 16 55
Parent went past H.S. 68 73 81 45
Parent owns home 70 59 76 58
Family owns computer 86 78 94 67
Family owns cell phone 78 71 85 62
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Data Collection Strategy
Offenders handled in teen court
Services and
sanctions
Changes in attitudes & opinions
RecidivismOffense, age, sex, race, etc.
——————— Content Domains———————
Offenders handled in regular court
Comparison
RecidivismOffense, age, sex, race, etc.
Teen Court
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Data Collection Strategy
Offenders handled in teen court
Services and
sanctions
Changes in attitudes & opinions
RecidivismOffense, age, sex, race, etc.
——————— Content Domains———————
Teen Court
Offenders handled in regular court
Comparison
RecidivismOffense, age, sex, race, etc.
Services and
sanctions
Changes in attitudes & opinions
Maryland site only
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Opinions & Attitudes
Items on:• socio-economic status• self-reported delinquency • delinquent peer association• pro-social attitudes• pro-social bonds• perceptions of justice system
Self-Administered Questionnaires (SAQ)
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Self-Admin Questionnaires
Intake
Same Day
SAQ 1: Parent &
YouthCourt
SAQ 2: Parent &
YouthSanctions
SAQ 3: Youth Only 30 – 60 Days
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Sample Attrition at Wave 3
Questionnaires completed AK AZ MD MO
Waves 1 and 2 (day of teen court) 117 108 154 145Wave 3 (follow-up) 114 39 75 56
Percent received 97% 36% 49% 39%
Youth were required to return third survey in person
Youth were asked to mail third survey
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Sample Attrition at Wave 3
Because of varying response rates to the 3rd youth questionnaires, the project’s measurement of program effects was limited to the official recidivism analysis and just few questions on the 1st and 2nd questionnaires
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Youth Attitudes
AK AZ MD MO
Teen court (will be / was) waste of time
Before teen court 7% 11% 12% 18%After teen court 4% 9% 12% 29%
Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Youth Attitudes
AK AZ MD MOTeen court (will be / was) waste of time
Before teen court 7% 11% 12% 18%After teen court 4% 9% 12% 29%
Glad I came here (not juv court)
Before teen court 97% 95% 97% 96%After teen court 93% 97% 92% 85%
Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Parent Attitudes
AK AZ MD MOTeen court (will be / was) a waste of time
Before teen court 7% 5% 6% 6%After teen court 5% 4% 4% 6%
Percent that “agree” or “strongly agree” with each item.
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Alaska
Arizona
Maryland
Missouri
Teen Court
Comparison
Six-Month Recidivism
6%23%
9%15%
8%4%
9%27%*
*
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
These findings suggest that teen court may be a viable alternative to the typical juvenile justice process...
Six-Month Recidivism
… especially in jurisdictions that are unable to provide extensive interventions for young, first-time juvenile offenders
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Moreover, even in jurisdictions that do have a wide range of interventions for young, first-time offenders…
Six-Month Recidivism
… teen courts may be a cost-effective option since they depend largely on volunteers and have small operating budgets
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Pro-social attitudesLow
Six-Month Recidivism
13%5%
11%5%
7%9%
12%4%
* High
Pro-social bondsLow
High
Delinquent peersLow
High
Parent’s pro-social expectations for youth
Low
High
*
*
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Implications
• Recidivism is low among teen court cases partly due to factors existing before teen court
• Client satisfaction is very high among youth and parents, even after teen court sanctioning
• No clear evidence that one courtroom model is best, but youth-run models (like those in Alaska and Missouri) deserve wider consideration
• Teen court may be a viable option for cases not likely to receive meaningful sanctions from the regular juvenile justice system
URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center
National Youth Court Center: Evaluation Workshop October 2002
Final Report Available
Impact of Teen Court on Young Offenders
go to
youth.urban.org
”Research Highlights”